[Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Rogol Domedonfors
This code has been under discussion at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer
of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in 2015
had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting of
the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and
they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated that
the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed, which
will be quite soon.

Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial consensus,
and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the WMF
choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
views on the subject?

If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?

"Rogol"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Lane Rasberry
Hello,

As of January the WMF has presented these also -

Dealing with online harassment
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Online_harassment/First_draft
>

Keeping events safe
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Keeping_events_safe/First_draft
>

I would like for whatever is adopted to match other similar proposals. So
far as I know, the technical space proposal is not compared with the
"online" proposal or the "events" proposal.

All of these are fine for informal consideration but I am not sure that now
is the time to call for final review of any of them. Votes take so much
community attention. I would be happy with any small group informally
approving any of these and circulating them slowly for a while instead of
calling for a vote just yet.

Thoughts?



On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This code has been under discussion at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer
> of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in 2015
> had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
> ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting of
> the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and
> they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated that
> the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed, which
> will be quite soon.
>
> Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial consensus,
> and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the WMF
> choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
> views on the subject?
>
> If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?
>
> "Rogol"
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Erik Bernhardson
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This code has been under discussion at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer
> of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in 2015
> had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
> ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting of
> the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and
> they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated that
> the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed, which
> will be quite soon.
>
> Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial consensus,
> and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the WMF
> choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
> views on the subject?
>
> It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have decided
to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.


> If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?
>
> "Rogol"
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Todd Allen
Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the
initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already
involved in technical areas or mailing lists.

"The community", when we're talking about something that will affect
everyone, means, well, everyone who cares to participate in the discussion.
The final version should be advertised as widely as possible, and the
community (not a subset of it) should decide if it's acceptable.

The fact that some people have participated on specific parts does not
negate the need for ratification of the full and final version. Work on
individual sections hammers out what you're going to present to the
community. It does not bypass the need to actually do that.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > This code has been under discussion at
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the
> summer
> > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in
> 2015
> > had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
> > ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting
> of
> > the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and
> > they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated that
> > the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed,
> which
> > will be quite soon.
> >
> > Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
> consensus,
> > and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the WMF
> > choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
> > views on the subject?
> >
> > It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have decided
> to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
> paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.
>
>
> > If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> > appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Erik Bernhardson
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the
> initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already
> involved in technical areas or mailing lists.
>
> "The community", when we're talking about something that will affect
> everyone, means, well, everyone who cares to participate in the discussion.
> The final version should be advertised as widely as possible, and the
> community (not a subset of it) should decide if it's acceptable.
>
> Again this hasn't defined what the community is.  The opening statement of
the draft says

This is a *code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces*. It applies both

> within physical spaces, such as Wikimedia technical events and Wikimedia
> technical presentations in other events, and virtual spaces (MediaWiki.org,
> wikitech.wikimedia.org <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/>, Phabricator
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Phabricator>, Gerrit
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Gerrit>, technical
> mailing lists
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview#MediaWiki_and_technical>
> , technical IRC channels
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels#MediaWiki_and_technical>,
> and Etherpad <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Etherpad>
> ).


Is this the community you are referring to?


> The fact that some people have participated on specific parts does not
> negate the need for ratification of the full and final version. Work on
> individual sections hammers out what you're going to present to the
> community. It does not bypass the need to actually do that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This code has been under discussion at
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the
> > summer
> > > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in
> > 2015
> > > had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community
> for
> > > ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting
> > of
> > > the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff,
> and
> > > they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated
> that
> > > the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed,
> > which
> > > will be quite soon.
> > >
> > > Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
> > consensus,
> > > and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the
> WMF
> > > choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
> > > views on the subject?
> > >
> > > It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> > mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> > such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> > participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> > opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have
> decided
> > to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
> > paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.
> >
> >
> > > If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> > > appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be
> publicised?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Todd Allen
No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who
might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless
of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area.
That is always the case.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the
> > initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already
> > involved in technical areas or mailing lists.
> >
> > "The community", when we're talking about something that will affect
> > everyone, means, well, everyone who cares to participate in the
> discussion.
> > The final version should be advertised as widely as possible, and the
> > community (not a subset of it) should decide if it's acceptable.
> >
> > Again this hasn't defined what the community is.  The opening statement
> of
> the draft says
>
> This is a *code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces*. It applies both
> > within physical spaces, such as Wikimedia technical events and Wikimedia
> > technical presentations in other events, and virtual spaces
> (MediaWiki.org,
> > wikitech.wikimedia.org <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/>,
> Phabricator
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Phabricator>, Gerrit
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Gerrit>, technical
> > mailing lists
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview#
> MediaWiki_and_technical>
> > , technical IRC channels
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels#MediaWiki_and_technical>,
> > and Etherpad <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Etherpad
> >
> > ).
>
>
> Is this the community you are referring to?
>
>
> > The fact that some people have participated on specific parts does not
> > negate the need for ratification of the full and final version. Work on
> > individual sections hammers out what you're going to present to the
> > community. It does not bypass the need to actually do that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This code has been under discussion at
> > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the
> > > summer
> > > > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus
> in
> > > 2015
> > > > had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community
> > for
> > > > ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the
> drafting
> > > of
> > > > the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff,
> > and
> > > > they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated
> > that
> > > > the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed,
> > > which
> > > > will be quite soon.
> > > >
> > > > Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
> > > consensus,
> > > > and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the
> > WMF
> > > > choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any
> community
> > > > views on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> > > mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> > > such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> > > participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> > > opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have
> > decided
> > > to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and
> not
> > > paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> > > > appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be
> > publicised?
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Lane Rasberry
On 02/21/2017 05:36 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote:
> I would like for whatever is adopted to match other similar proposals. So
> far as I know, the technical space proposal is not compared with the
> "online" proposal or the "events" proposal.

Although those are training modules and the Code of Conduct for
technical spaces is a draft policy, the purposes are consistent.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Erik Bernhardson
On 02/21/2017 05:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson wrote:
>> It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have decided
> to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
> paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.

I agree that it's been widely announced in the appropriate venues (e.g.
wikitech-l and other lists, Phabricator, MediaWiki.org).  Ultimately,
what matters is whether they are a participant in the technical
community, not whether they are a volunteer or staff.  However, both
volunteers and staff participants have joined the CoC process.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
On 02/21/2017 06:24 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who
> might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless
> of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area.
> That is always the case.

No, it certainly is not.

Generally users who are not part of the community/just joined for the
discussion do not have the same weight, and their position may be
disregarded entirely.

English Wikipedia policy is clear
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry): 
"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or
given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them
expressing the same opinion."

Other wikis have similar conventions and policies, and some other wikis
even formalize this into required edit counts.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Flaschen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> However, both volunteers and staff participants have joined the CoC
> process.


Matthew is too modest – the discussions has been managed by staff since
late 2015, almost all of the contributions to the discussion have been from
staff members, the consultants discussed the process only with staff and
their alleged report was never shown to other participants, part of the
text was dictated directly by WMF Legal staff with others forbidden to
discuss it, and Matthew himself has managed most of the recent work on
opening and closing the discussions, and promoting his "decision" that a
community vote was not necessary.

Without a reference to the community for acceptance, this will be a WMF
policy, imposed by the authority of the WMF.  If the community are happy
with that, all well and good.  But let's not pretend that it's anything
else.

"Rogol"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Pine W
Hi Rogol,

When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
effectively no conduct policy for technical spaces -- in particular,
Phabricator and MediaWiki, unless I am missing a conduct policy that
already applies to them outside of the ToS. If there is no policy, is that
better than the policy that Matthew has been drafting?

I am not saying that I am happy with the process or content of the proposed
policy. On the other hand, I also think there should be something
resembling a civility policy and a system for enforcing it, for Phabricator
and MediaWiki in particular. So if the Code of Conduct that Matthew is
proposing fails in any number of ways (e.g. failing its RfC, failing
through lack of enforcement, etc.), what would you propose be done instead?

I'll note that I'm an admin on the Outreach wiki, where are policies are
few and far between, but fortunately there are few disputes on Outreach,
and most of the problematic behavior that I've seen as an admin involved
clear-cut cases of spam, so I haven't felt a need for us to spend countless
hours drafting and discussing policies. I wonder, are the Phabricator and
Mediawiki spaces generally civil enough that this CoC is disproportionately
weighty as compared to the problems, or would a CoC be a net benefit to
them? What do you (and others) think? I'm not experienced enough in those
spaces to feel like I know enough about them to say one way or the other.
Much as I'm unenthusiastic about the TCoC, I would hope that if there is
not a consensus to implement it, that the consequences and possible
follow-up actions from that decision are carefully considered.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Steinsplitter Wiki
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
Hello Matthew Flaschen,
Hello List,


The code of conduct is affecting the whole Wikimedia community, including dewp/enwp/et all.  Why? Because if someone from dewp for example want to report a bug the code of conduct applies.  So the local community should be notified as well, imho.

I am also not a fan if a Staffer (Matthew in this case) is taking part of the vote and then closing/evaluating the section himself, i see a conflict of interest here. This should be done by someone completely uninvolved. Matthew is highly involved and should, imho, abstain from marking section as done/consensus and striking votes.


I am not against a code of conduct (of course not! if someone is insulting other users or playing nasty games then he should get blocked ), but i am against a code of conduct whit a arbcom like constructions which lives door and gate open for potential abuse.

Just a few thoughts :-)


Regards,

Steinsplitter

________________________________
Von: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Matthew Flaschen <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2017 04:46
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

On 02/21/2017 05:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson wrote:
>> It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have decided
> to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
> paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.

I agree that it's been widely announced in the appropriate venues (e.g.
wikitech-l and other lists, Phabricator, MediaWiki.org).  Ultimately,
what matters is whether they are a participant in the technical
community, not whether they are a volunteer or staff.  However, both
volunteers and staff participants have joined the CoC process.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Pine W
Pine


When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
> contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
> influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
> moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
> effectively no conduct policy for technical spaces -- in particular,
> Phabricator and MediaWiki, unless I am missing a conduct policy that
> already applies to them outside of the ToS. If there is no policy, is that
> better than the policy that Matthew has been drafting?
>

Perhaps that is a good reason for putting the decision to the Community:
collectively they are the people who have to deal with the consequences of
a flawed or non-existent policy.

"Rogol"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Pine W
Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:

I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
either fails to achieve consensus or if there is a consensus against it.

I'm going to do something bold here and ping Maggie. I met her long before
she was promoted to her current exalted position, and I like how she thinks
about problems. I'm not promising to agree with her on this issue, but I'd
be really interested in hearing her thoughts about options if the TCoC does
not achieve consensus. I'm asking for opinions and options,rather than
decisions.While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
seems prudent to explore alternatives.

A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
WMF involvement with the draft, but in principle I tend to think that there
should be some kind of baseline expectation for civil conduct, some
explanations of what that means, and some ways for the community (i.e. not
WMF) to address behavior problems in places like Phabricator and MediaWiki.
Even if this iteration of the TCoC is not adopted, perhaps with some
modifications or revisions and with community leadership, some kind of TCoC
will be adopted at a future date.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Todd Allen
I think we definitely should think about next steps if the draft fails to
gain consensus. (And, for that matter, if it does get consensus, there will
be a lot of followup work in that case too.)

But if it fails, one of the most important questions will be "Why did
people object to this and how can we address those issues?"

On Feb 24, 2017 2:15 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:
>
> I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
> for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
> thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
> either fails to achieve consensus or if there is a consensus against it.
>
> I'm going to do something bold here and ping Maggie. I met her long before
> she was promoted to her current exalted position, and I like how she thinks
> about problems. I'm not promising to agree with her on this issue, but I'd
> be really interested in hearing her thoughts about options if the TCoC does
> not achieve consensus. I'm asking for opinions and options,rather than
> decisions.While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
> creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
> seems prudent to explore alternatives.
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft, but in principle I tend to think that there
> should be some kind of baseline expectation for civil conduct, some
> explanations of what that means, and some ways for the community (i.e. not
> WMF) to address behavior problems in places like Phabricator and MediaWiki.
> Even if this iteration of the TCoC is not adopted, perhaps with some
> modifications or revisions and with community leadership, some kind of TCoC
> will be adopted at a future date.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Erik Bernhardson
In reply to this post by Pine W
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft


One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
do so) not be involved?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Pine W
Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
process, and a greater proportion of community input.

Pine


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> > WMF involvement with the draft
>
>
> One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
> do so) not be involved?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

quiddity-2
* The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the communities.
* Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
involved, are part of the communities.
* It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
* We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
apply for jobs, and for grants.
* If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
your area of activity?

--
quiddity


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
> aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
> questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
> terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
> like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
> an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
> process, and a greater proportion of community input.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> > > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far
> less
> > > WMF involvement with the draft
> >
> >
> > One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> > participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
> > do so) not be involved?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Adrian Raddatz
WMF staff are certainly contributors within the technical spaces. There's
no reason why they shouldn't be able to participate in the COC formation
process (which I have unrelated concerns with...)

A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
of advertising, and half on a lack of interest.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, quiddity <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
> communities.
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
> roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
> * We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
> apply for jobs, and for grants.
> * If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
> staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
> your area of activity?
>
> --
> quiddity
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
> > aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
> > questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
> > terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
> > like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
> > an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
> > process, and a greater proportion of community input.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made
> some
> > > > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far
> > less
> > > > WMF involvement with the draft
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> > > participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job
> to
> > > do so) not be involved?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Pine W
> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
communities.

> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
> roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
> * We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
> apply for jobs, and for grants.
> * If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
> staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
> your area of activity?

The way that I tend to think about this question -- which as I'll explain
in a minute, I know is simplified -- is that by "the community" we mean
people who are not WMF employees or employees of affiliates, and who
contribute to the Wikiverse in some way.

This email is going to sound legalistic at first but I hope you'll read it
all the way through.

The reason behind that thinking (and others may have their own thoughts on
this) is that WMF and affiliate employees are receiving financial and
non-financial compensation from WMF or their affiliate, and they have
strong incentives -- in some cases, legal obligations -- to do what their
employer tells them to do and to comply with their contracts, or else lose
their job and possibly get a bad reference which could impact the
likelihood of them being hired by anyone else. Also, I doubt that many WMF
and affiliate employees would feel that it's permissible and safe for them
to publicly critique the members of their governing boards, which is
another difference between employees and community members.

There are also cultural differences. WMF is organized hierarchically, is
opaque about details of its financial spending (an illustration of this was
the contract with Sue for consulting work which was a surprise when I
learned about it), has chosen to use technical means to override community
RfC decisions (such as with Superprotect), and isn't a membership
organization.

WMF does a lot of valuable work in support of the community, for example by
running servers, handling subpoenas, developing software, and providing
grants to individuals and organizations. Affiliate employees also do very
important work, such as with Wikidata and the Wikipedia in Education
program.

Admittedly, the dichotomy of "community membership" / "employee" is a
simplification. For example, individual grantees and contractors may do
temporary or part-time work for WMF or an affiliate. Affiliates as
organizations have some interest in the health and policies of WMF and
staying on somewhat good terms with WMF, particularly regarding WMF's role
as a grantmaker and provider of trademark licenses.

I think that having WMF and affiliate employees in support roles is
important and valuable. However, one place where problems start to surface
is when WMF or affiliate employees start to tell their communities what to
do. That is not their job. Their job is to support the community and to
implement policy, not to manage the community, and not to create policy
without approval from either their organization's board or from the
community that they serve.

The "community" vs "employee" dichotomy makes it sound like there are no
shades of gray, but there are, and I'd welcome conversations about how to
develop a vocabulary that better illustrates this.

To answer your last question directly: yes, there are initiatives which I
would feel would be inappropriate for me to lead as an affiliate or WMF
employee, for example I would feel OK about *facilitating* community
discussion about a global ban policy but I wouldn't want to create and
impose that policy myself without some kind of community consensus. Also, I
would be much more cautious about what I chose to say about the governance
of WMF and my affiliate employer, because I would have financial and
employment interests that would conflict with my ability to speak candidly,
especially in public.


A brief follow-up to Adrian regarding :
> A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
> of advertising, and half on a lack of interest.

From what I can see, Matthew has been thorough about trying to recruit
participation.

I'm trying to leave the door open to approving some kind of TCoC. Perhaps
there will indeed be community consensus to approve the draft that's
currently in the works -- I don't know. I prefer a different process and
some changes to the draft, but with the information that I have it's
impossible for me to predict what the outcome of an RfC on the final
document will be. If it's approved with significant community (i.e. non-WMF
support), I'll learn to accept it or propose amendments at some point. I
realize that there has been good-faith effort in developing that draft, and
I appreciate the effort even if the draft doesn't pass. From my
perspective, a bigger problem with conduct policy at the moment is the
situation with WMF's global ban practices, as has been discussed elsewhere.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123